Conquer Club

Personally I'm enjoying the Democrats making fools of themselves during their nomination process. It pretty much boils down to these superdelegates that they created because they don't trust their own voters to nominate the correct person. But it would be interesting to see how the libbies here will react when the upcoming meltdown takes place at their convention.

Here's the question - If Obama wins a majority of delegates but Hillary still gets the nomination because of the superdelegate rule, will you accept that decision as legitimate?

It's one of the most undemocratic things in the USA I think. I would accept the decision mostly because it's not my country and partly because they're the rules and stuff.

Also, your options are all contradicting.

Snorri1234 wrote:Also, your options are all contradicting.

I screwed up how I worded the 2nd part of it and just changed it. By the way how do people feel about a voter do-over in Michigan and Florida?

Besides the humangous election costs there is dictatorship, way to go!

bradleybadly wrote:By the way how do people feel about a voter do-over in Michigan and Florida?

I am torn. On the one hand I think they should get a vote, but on the other hand I see it's just so Clinton can get votes as she won the elections.

But then again Clinton is just too fucking stubborn. Obama has more delegates even when you count the difference in superdelegates. All the experts are saying that the way this is going is bad for the democratic party because the republicans are already lining up to take shots at both candidates while Obama and Clinton are busy with eachother.

f*ck it America, I don't want you to choose another republican who continues the war in Iraq till the end of times.

John McCain is 71 years old

As long as i can be Hilary's Lewinsky who cares.

HILARY IS SOOOOOOOOOOOOO FIT

Snorri1234 wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:By the way how do people feel about a voter do-over in Michigan and Florida?

I am torn. On the one hand I think they should get a vote, but on the other hand I see it's just so Clinton can get votes as she won the elections.

But then again Clinton is just too fucking stubborn. Obama has more delegates even when you count the difference in superdelegates. All the experts are saying that the way this is going is bad for the democratic party because the republicans are already lining up to take shots at both candidates while Obama and Clinton are busy with eachother.

f*ck it America, I don't want you to choose another republican who continues the war in Iraq till the end of times.

Clinton didn't win real elections in either states. When voters are told their votes won't count, and most candidates agree to not campaign or put their names on the ballot there, that is not a fair election.

A voter "do-over" that gave both candidates a chance to vote again would ideally be great; the only problem is the cost of such an election. Florida is apparently in a very bad place economically.

Why are independents spineless again? Because they aren't strong enough to follow someone else's path, or what? Yah, I voted the bottom option. Super delegates are an absolutely terrible idea.

InkL0sed wrote:Clinton didn't win real elections in either states. When voters are told their votes won't count, and most candidates agree to not campaign or put their names on the ballot there, that is not a fair election.

Well yeah, but I can understand why Clinton is supporting the do-over.

Snorri1234 wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:By the way how do people feel about a voter do-over in Michigan and Florida?

I am torn. On the one hand I think they should get a vote, but on the other hand I see it's just so Clinton can get votes as she won the elections.

But then again Clinton is just too fucking stubborn. Obama has more delegates even when you count the difference in superdelegates. All the experts are saying that the way this is going is bad for the democratic party because the republicans are already lining up to take shots at both candidates while Obama and Clinton are busy with eachother.

f*ck it America, I don't want you to choose another republican who continues the war in Iraq till the end of times.

Nah, the thing is that in Michigan Hilary was one of the only (or was it the only?) candidates on the list, so it wasn't really a fair election. That and the fact that before the Florida primary voters were told that the primary didn't count so a lot didn't vote. They could both very well go Obama.

Snorri1234 wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:Clinton didn't win real elections in either states. When voters are told their votes won't count, and most candidates agree to not campaign or put their names on the ballot there, that is not a fair election.

Well yeah, but I can understand why Clinton is supporting the do-over.

What was the reason to the election not to count again? Read it but forgot :/

oggiss wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:Clinton didn't win real elections in either states. When voters are told their votes won't count, and most candidates agree to not campaign or put their names on the ballot there, that is not a fair election.

Well yeah, but I can understand why Clinton is supporting the do-over.

What was the reason to the election not to count again? Read it but forgot :/

with michigan it was because the state democratic party decided to move up the primary despite being told not to.

got tonkaed wrote:

oggiss wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:Clinton didn't win real elections in either states. When voters are told their votes won't count, and most candidates agree to not campaign or put their names on the ballot there, that is not a fair election.

Well yeah, but I can understand why Clinton is supporting the do-over.

What was the reason to the election not to count again? Read it but forgot :/

with michigan it was because the state democratic party decided to move up the primary despite being told not to.

Isn't that the same reason as Florida?

got tonkaed wrote:

oggiss wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:Clinton didn't win real elections in either states. When voters are told their votes won't count, and most candidates agree to not campaign or put their names on the ballot there, that is not a fair election.

Well yeah, but I can understand why Clinton is supporting the do-over.

What was the reason to the election not to count again? Read it but forgot :/

with michigan it was because the state democratic party decided to move up the primary despite being told not to.

LAME!!!!!


I am afraid of Hillary winning though, then many conspircay theories must be true

InkL0sed wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

oggiss wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:Clinton didn't win real elections in either states. When voters are told their votes won't count, and most candidates agree to not campaign or put their names on the ballot there, that is not a fair election.

Well yeah, but I can understand why Clinton is supporting the do-over.

What was the reason to the election not to count again? Read it but forgot :/

with michigan it was because the state democratic party decided to move up the primary despite being told not to.

Isn't that the same reason as Florida?

I think they were similar reasons, but im not positive about florida...i knew back when it happened i think lol.

Well I'm fairly certain both moved up their primaries, hence the Howard Dean smack-down.

InkL0sed wrote:Well I'm fairly certain both moved up their primaries, hence the Howard Dean smack-down.

tbh i dont think either one of them should get a revote, everyone knew what the rules were, and the state committees thought everyone would just let them have their cake and eat it too. If they let them have a do-over we are going to deal with this for a number of elections going forward, and its just one more thing that distracts the campaigns from actually doing something of substance.

And it probably would have the effect of making people more interested in what their state committees are doing, because id imagine people wont be happy with the idea their states delegates wouldnt get seated.

got tonkaed wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:Well I'm fairly certain both moved up their primaries, hence the Howard Dean smack-down.

tbh i dont think either one of them should get a revote, everyone knew what the rules were, and the state committees thought everyone would just let them have their cake and eat it too. If they let them have a do-over we are going to deal with this for a number of elections going forward, and its just one more thing that distracts the campaigns from actually doing something of substance.

And it probably would have the effect of making people more interested in what their state committees are doing, because id imagine people wont be happy with the idea their states delegates wouldnt get seated.

But why should the DNP (I think that's the right abbreviation...?) even try to set dates for the primaries? I've heard the argument about giving the candidates time to campaign in each state, but I would think the states would generally be interested in giving them that chance anyway.

well i believe in some cases the states have it written into their own constitutions about when the primaries are supposed to be. New hampshire for instance is supposed to be the first primary ever year. Though im blissfully ignorant on the whole as to how the whole process works, i think its sort of something that the states and national branches work out together.

Hence once you have something thats set up to work out fairly well, the group with the heavy hammer doesnt take a liking to the little folk screwing up the system so they can get an extra 15 minutes of attention.

While not perfect, i think its sensible enough.

What's the difference between bradleybadly and a spineless indipendent?

'A spineless indipendent' is an oxymoron.

I hate superdelegates. I think that's all that needs to be said really.

got tonkaed wrote:tbh i dont think either one of them should get a revote, everyone knew what the rules were, and the state committees thought everyone would just let them have their cake and eat it too. If they let them have a do-over we are going to deal with this for a number of elections going forward, and its just one more thing that distracts the campaigns from actually doing something of substance.

Yeah I agree. I just didn't say so at the beginning because I thought people would just disagree since it came from me. Nice post.

mandalorian2298 wrote:What's the difference between bradleybadly and a spineless indipendent?

'A spineless indipendent' is an oxymoron.

Haha - Gold

I am curious, Bradley, and you have failed to answer this despite a number of people bringing it up already: What exactly makes an independent spineless?

Two party systems are just as much of joke as this whole super delegate crap